Hey Vic, I intended no personal offense and, actually, was satisfied that I had not made one when I pointed out that conflating a legalistic fiction (the corporation) with individual people did, as a logical error, undermine your position. You yourself pointed out some of the important differences. Skill in oration does not seem to be involved, corporations are not people. People are moral creatures that can and often do make moral choices and, as you point out, corporate decisions do not involve morality. The two "creatures" are therefore not the same, so we agree. Please don't take offense, none intended.
I like your example of democracy... Leo Szilard made a similar example in "The Voice of the Dolphins" when he said that in America two idiots out-vote one genius. Even idiots can often make good choices, however, if there is honest media.
The corporate system has, as one product, a heavy hand in the political process and the creation of self-serving laws. In the law this is recognized in a sort of backhanded way, as "mala prohibita" law and "mala in se" law. One prohibits acts "because we say so" and the other prohibits acts because they are "inherently wrong". Getting EPA to prohibit l'oids is an example of the former kind of law, so are so-called "gun laws" and the silly motorcycle helmet laws and so on. Anyway, it is corporate power that vets candidates for office and keeps 'em there, often by means of media they control. This is because they have control of so much money, the ready fuel of politics. As they take advantage of and create the opportunities to make profitable fuel out of biological materials they raise the price of food. Poor people then get less to eat. When people object to this victimization they tend to run afoul of "the law". Absent the amoral corporation it seems doubtful that so neat an arrangement would occur.
Without corporate expansionism and dominance of government one is inclined to wonder - would control of the cheap oil of the Middle East be a "foreign policy" goal? Would the US have invaded and occupied a foreign country if this was not a corporate agenda? Would, absent corporate co-option, government on the grand scale of "ours" not be more interested in developing solar resources and synthetic oil from coal than in foreign imperialism?
The only practical defense at this time, and this is defense in degree only, it is not a cure-all, is to use the lawyers and the political system ourselves, so far as we can. When I consider the alternative to having lawyers I think I prefer the ability I have at present - the ability to go into court with the toughest lawyer I can hire. But when I consider the alternative to having corporations as they presently exist - well, that does seem interesting. Following the developing revolutionary change in the way people live, following the train-wreck of peak oil and climate change, it may be possible to re-gain political and legal control of the corporate beasts. To harness 'em to genuine common interest goals. It may occur. That would be interesting to watch. Meanwhile, on the local level, the political process does seem to me to work fairly well. This is, however, a local view in a small rural county. We have a good sensible sheriff, an easygoing building department and a pretty nice jail, a nitwitted game warden (only one!), good fire department, and the county has no intention of paving any more roads. We ran the crank labs out of the county and there's still some industry so ordinary people can make a living. There seems to me to be more danger from bears and lions hereabouts than from people, unless a fella is a thief.
If one reads the history of the Republican Party one will see the struggle there between popular control of the party (the progressive movement) and corporate control. It seems that this struggle occurred with that party because their progressive liberal agenda tended to reduce corporate profits. The squeaky wheel got the grease, or maybe the shaft...thus leaving the liberal and progressive agenda to the Democratic Party - which waves that flag and spouts that talk while it follows the corporate money, not that they don't throw us a bone now and then... The presently ongoing self-destruction of that party seems to me to promise some hope of a more liberal future, important in order to adapt to the onrushing waves of change.
And change is blasting towards us all. As Zeke points out, the arabs will soon enough have the gadget, (if they don't already). And Carter? Recall that he had a fuel policy to develop domestic solutions - which ray-gun axed, just as he busted unions. So, let us bring this back to the point - what will the political effects of corporate bio-fuel agendas be inside the US when they set one off? How can bio-fuel engineering be perverted to loot the common (american) man and crises developes?
Best,
Phaedrus
